Comment

Representation ID: 24879

Received: 27/10/2017

Respondent: Sport England

Sport England does not encourage a standards approach with regard to the provision of outdoor space for sport, as this fails to take account of current levels of provision and variations in existing supply and future needs. Policies should be based on the current Ipswich Playing Pitch Strategy (2015) which assesses current supply and demand, as well as future requirements, for playing pitches in the Ipswich Borough Council area.

Comment

Representation ID: 24905

Received: 27/10/2017

Respondent: The Woodland Trust

We favour the use of access standards to determine the amount of new greenspace which may be required, particularly as part of new housing or commercial development. The Woodland Trust has developed an access to woodland standard for use by local authorities. This aspires that everyone should have a small wood of at least two hectares in size within 500 metres of their home.
Tree planting/woodland creation can be developed in other ways. Putting street trees in new and existing housing areas can be of great benefit, particularly in reducing air pollution.

Comment

Representation ID: 24988

Received: 25/10/2017

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Yes.

Comment

Representation ID: 24999

Received: 25/10/2017

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England considers that Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards (ANGSt) should be applied to the Borough to ensure that everyone has access to good quality natural greenspace near to where they live. We advise seeking opportunities to link existing natural greenspaces in addition to the management of existing open spaces and the creation of new ones.

Comment

Representation ID: 25025

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk Wildlife Trust

Provided that the standard set is appropriate and achievable, we consider that using a standards based approach is an adequate way of ensuring that sufficient open space is delivered.

Comment

Representation ID: 25049

Received: 31/10/2017

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Yes.

Comment

Representation ID: 25187

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Environment Agency

We welcome the recognition of the range of sizes and types of open space in Ipswich. Benefits of the provision of new, and enhancement on existing, multifunctional open space include reduced flood risk, leisure provision, social cohesion and an increase in the value of development. The Plan suggests that fewer large areas of open space would be more cost efficient to maintain than a large
number of small spaces. However, the plan should also consider the benefits for urban biodiversity and amenity provided by a network of smaller open spaces.
Policies should look not only to halt biodiversity loss but to provide net gains for biodiversity wherever possible. We would encourage policies for de-culverting, removal of redundant structures from Main Rivers, creation and maintenance of green corridors to buffer watercourses, native riparian tree planting where appropriate and removal of invasive non-native species. There is currently no mention of non-native species, and the River Gipping in particular has Himalayan Balsam, Japanese Knotweed and Giant Hogweed which are negatively impacting on biodiversity within Ipswich and must be addressed.

Comment

Representation ID: 25320

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Conservative Group

No, a standards approach should not be used. As with many other items this should be considered on a case by case basis. Some of the smaller areas of open space in recent developments have proved to be unpopular and difficult to maintain efficiently. If we have such a shortage of housing space, then we need to resist the addition of extra smaller open space areas and instead use contributions from developers to increase the standards of what we already have.